Yes, self-deception is at the heart of the matter, and the reasons for it are often (possibly always) answered by personal psychology.

Anecdote for you: one SES member gave a speech on why they are a member, it was all about how wretched they once felt about themselves, that they hated themselves. SES had made them feel like a better person. This speech did not include the self-observation that what had occurred here may in fact have been a gigantic ego boost, precisely because they had been persuaded that they had become a better person by transcending the limitations of the ego. The absurdity of that notion was not addressed. To my mind they had deceived themselves, but the organization appears to have been instrumental in them doing so. They were susceptible to engineered self-deception because they too desperately wanted to transcend who they were. They were given a mirage that they preferred. I think they would have to leave SES for a while to fully become conscious that they had been through this complex psychological process.

your comments are all heartening. It seems all the really nice people have left SES type organisations, and got together in places like this forum. What a wonderful place SES would be if it had happened the other way round. i.e. the ignorant ego types were expelled by the good ones - leaving only the good ones behind.

And I find the phrase "We only fooled ourselves." very eye opening. I wonder if Dr.Alan or others have any views on that. i.e. all associated with SES are subjected to similar things in many ways. What is it, I wonder, which has a detrimental effect on some people, but appears not to affect others ???? Is something inside the person where the difference lies ??

AT said,

Yes, self-deception is at the heart of the matter, and the reasons for it are often (possibly always) answered by personal psychology.

And it’s funny because coincidently I said,

Ignorant, egomaniacal, tosser.

In response to Dr Alans request to,

comment ,comment, comment, - But it will all be for you to read - not me .

So I did, did, did and which were observations rather than criticisms.

You, ‘StillatSES’ in an unheard of move have joined the forum with the words, “Nothing Wrong with SES” to defend the organisation then continued to undergo some conversion over one and a half months even though you said,

As my tag suggests I am still at SES. I have been reading through various topics and especially the Mistakes Against the Shankaracharya posts for a few days now. So I thought it was time to make a few comments about the statements Dr. Alan has been making. From the various bits of information you have given I think I know who you are Dr. Alan, from being at SES in the late 1960's early 1970's and later on going to a teacher in India were some of the clues. However, some of the statements you have made are quite serious as far as SES is concerned, so it is important to ascertain the truth of them. I will be returning later with more information as soon as I have been able to find enough facts to refute the things you have been saying.Most people currently at SES would not agree with these so called mistakes. I have been at SES for more than 3 decades of my life. All the people I know at SES are happy to remain there in the sure knowledge that they belong to a real school which has the traditional knowledge of Advaita Vedanta. If these mistakes Dr. Alan has stated were true then why would people stay for such a long time?Many people leave SES all the time. This is their choice. The benefits of remaining at the school for many years are clearly seen in the lives of all those I know. Naturally many people have problems with commitment to giving up some of their free time to help run SES, so eventually thy leave. This happens with all organisations which require some voluntary commitment. This seems to be the main problem people have with SES as far as we are concerned. All these other issues on this forum (except maybe the children's school problems) are due to peoples own personality and their delusions really. But I expect you will not agree with me.It is possible that many people at SES may consider leaving (or indeed not joining) if they were to find that these mistakes are true. So I have taken it upon myself to refute them with factual information which I am gathering together. So any current SES members reading this should know that the school does not accept these accusations in any way.So watch this space.

Well, following your recent review of more than three decades of your life and conclusion you have been mistaken, you then conduct some kind of snide hit and run post on the forum aimed at me. Cocky aren’t you?

I find your behaviour fascinating and I know you’re precious so I’ll be kind. Can I ask, whoever you may be, what effect your post had on your ego? Did you feel empowered? Have you left SES yet? And finally, who do you think you are deceiving currently? To be honest I don’t care but these are the questions you should be asking yourself, I already know.

Both your and Dr Alan’s excessive usage of the question mark is both unnecessary and questionable, by the way.

GD, I think StillatSES has decided to leave the SES for genuine reasons. I'm not sure if he is still posting, but it was my impression that membership of this forum genuinely changed the way he thought about the SES. I think we should give people the benefit of the doubt in this regard - my own "un-conversion" happened over a similar, if perhaps slightly longer, period of time.

StillatSES wrote:I want to thank all forum members who have supported me and through private messages have been very caring and kind at a time when I was finding it painful to make the decision. But be sure - there is no turning back now - as I have definitely realised that SES is a false, arrogant and pretentious place to be.

I think this is genuine. The decision to leave the SES is obviously a very difficult one - I'm sure we can forgive a few stumbles along the way.

the way you signed off your last post as, "Ignorant, egomaniacal, tosser." reminds me of a Mullah Nasrudin story I once read.

I think it goes something like this.

A philosopher, having made an appointment to have a dispute with Nasrudin, called and found him away from home. Infuriated, he picked up a piece of chalk and wrote "stupid oaf" on Nasrudin's gate.

As soon as Nasrudin arrive back and saw this, he rushed to the philosopher's house.

"I had forgotten", he said, "that you were to call. And I apologise for not having been at home. Of course I remembered the appointment as soon as I saw that you had left your name on my door."

Having acquainted myself with SES behaviour after around thirty-eight years I have come to notice that the old ‘smug, anecdotal put down’ is a trait that should be acknowledged under ‘Typical’ and typically serves no useful purpose other than to inflate the ego of the perpetrator in the pursuit of causing ridicule. Due to the anecdotal nature of the put down it may leave some feeling humiliated and/or helpless, in varying degrees, on account of the seeming lack of recourse. A classic control tactic especially when employed publicly to shut someone up due to some form of insecurity that may consequently be felt in the face of their peer group.

If I didn’t know the above then I may have raised more than an eyebrow. If this poster has some grievance with me, they should let me know. Stumbling is forgivable, everybody does. I respectfully request this poster doesn’t stumble on me again and seriously consider reading the relevant literature from the ‘Overcoming ‘ series and the life game ‘Alcoholic’ in the Games People Play by Eric Berne, M.D. which may indeed help them.

Clinical studies have shown that there may be a danger to persons who take part inconsciosness raising. At some point they may experience crisis. And I know that the schools do not have anyone on hand of a professions capasity should this occur. The damage done cane be permanent.